Resettle illegal human communities (i.e. in a protected area) to another location

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

65%
Certainty

15%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

The resettlement of people from existing or newly-established protected areas to increase protection of the habitat and the species living in it, is inherently political and hotly debated (Adams & Hutton 2007). The intervention is based on the notion that settlements and the actions of the people living in these settlements threaten the integrity of the natural area that is under protection. Therefore, the intervention involves moving the people from inside the protected area to the outside. Examples of resettled communities include the people from the Nechasar National Park in southern Ethiopia, before handing the area over to the African Parks Foundation, displacements in Korup National Park, Cameroon, through a progressive resettlement scheme of the Ekundukundu Village, or the eviction of Bushmen from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (Adams & Hutton 2007).

Adams W.M. & Hutton J. (2007) People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society, 5, 147–183.

Study locations

Key messages

One review on mountain gorillas in Uganda found that no more gorillas were killed after illegal settlers were relocated from the area, alongside other interventions.
One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years after human communities were resettled, from the protected area alongside other interventions.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A review of mountain gorillas Gorilla beringei beringei in 1972-1989 in tropical montane forest in Eastern Virungas Conservation Area, Uganda found that no gorillas were killed in 1989-1990 after human settlers were relocated from an area inside the Gorilla Game Reserve alongside other interventions. This area represented important gorilla habitat and was 3 km² in size. At the same time, the game guard force was also increased from three to 13 men, provided with better equipment, and trained and supervised by researchers who started working in the area as part of a permanent research project. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Butynski T.M., Werikhe S.E. & Kalina J. (1990) Status, distribution and conservation of the mountain gorilla in the Gorilla Game Reserve, Uganda. Primate Conservation, 11, 31-41.
A before-and-after trial in 1994-1999 in mixed tropical dry and swamp forest in Conkouati-Douli National Park, Republic of Congo found that the majority of reintroduced central chimpanzees Pan troglodytes troglodytes survived for at least five years when resident illegal human communities were resettled to another location along with 16 other interventions. Fourteen out of 20 reintroduced chimpanzees (70%) survived until at least the end of the study. No statistical tests were carried out to determine whether the population decrease was significant. Thirteen local people that lived at the release site were moved to a village nearby. Rehabilitated orphaned chimpanzees underwent vaccination, treatment for parasites and veterinary screens before being radio-collared and translocated in four subgroups to the release site where wild chimpanzees lived. Staff members were permanently present to monitor primate health, provide animals with additional food if necessary and detect and examine dead animals. The area status was upgraded from a reserve to a national park in 1999. Some individuals were treated when sick or injured. TV and radio advertisements were used to raise chimpanzee conservation awareness and local people were provided monetary and non-monetary benefits in exchange for their conservation support. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Tutin C.E.G., Ancrenaz M., Paredes J., Vacher-Vallas M., Vidal C., Goossens B., Bruford M.W. & Jamart A. (2001) The conservation biology framework of the release of wild-born orphaned chimpanzees into the Conkouati Reserve, Congo. Conservation Biology, 15, 1247-1257.

Please cite as:

Junker, J., Kühl, H.S., Orth, L., Smith, R.K., Petrovan, S.O. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Primate Conservation. Pages 431-482 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Primate Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Implement a ‘no-feeding of wild primates’ policy Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Resettle illegal human communities (i.e. in a protected area) to another location Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Restrict the number of people that are allowed access to site Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link